Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Remove header field from clean::Function - #95096
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Mar 19, 2022
Some changes occurred in cc @camelid |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Mar 19, 2022
Forgot to run the perf check. @bors try @rust-timer queue |
rust-timer
commented
Mar 19, 2022
Awaiting bors try build completion. @rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf |
bors
commented
Mar 19, 2022
⌛ Trying commit 460442576cda0a8e3f6a36023cbfc96d15e1124a with merge adc3dafa0f99c69b5c77712a174931437f4701a3... |
bors
commented
Mar 19, 2022
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
rust-timer
commented
Mar 19, 2022
Queued adc3dafa0f99c69b5c77712a174931437f4701a3 with parent 3153584, future comparison URL. |
4604425 to
e1dc7edCompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Mar 19, 2022
Applied suggestions. |
rust-timer
commented
Mar 19, 2022
Finished benchmarking commit (adc3dafa0f99c69b5c77712a174931437f4701a3): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run shows 39 relevant improvements 🎉 to instruction counts.
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR led to changes in compiler perf. @bors rollup=never |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Mar 19, 2022
Nice improvements overall! For the rss usage, we have -0.93% on primary benchmarks and -1.16% on secondary benchmarks. I also added a test which reexports a foreign function from a dependency to be sure there is no issue with the |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
98cefd8 to
d135230Compareb0798bd to
8ce764cCompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Mar 24, 2022
Updated! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I noticed several places where the constness is overrided like this. I don't quite understand why this code existed. Does the new, on-demand computation account for the old overriding behavior?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Likewise, some places used is_const_fn_raw while others used is_const_fn. Is this handled properly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was more or less the same code done by different functions. We have a lot of rustdoc tests for functions and methods to ensure their signature is as expected (I know it because I broke a lot of them while working on this PR).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, seems good to me then. It's good to know the tests worked as intended and failed with previous versions of the code :)
camelid
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r=me with the following comments addressed
Thanks for this refactor!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, seems good to me then. It's good to know the tests worked as intended and failed with previous versions of the code :)
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
8ce764c to
8071332CompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Mar 29, 2022
@bors: r=camelid rollup=never |
bors
commented
Mar 29, 2022
📌 Commit 8071332 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Mar 29, 2022
bors
commented
Mar 29, 2022
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
rust-timer
commented
Mar 29, 2022
Finished benchmarking commit (11909e3): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run shows 30 relevant improvements 🎉 to instruction counts.
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
…g, r=notriddle Remove unneeded `to_string` call Fixes a confusion I made when reading `@camelid's` comment [here](rust-lang#95096 (comment)). r? `@notriddle`
Fixes#89673.
This is another take on #89673 (compared to #91217) but very different on the approach: I moved the header call in one place but still require to have the
clean::Itemso I can use theDefIdto get what is missing.cc @jyn514 (you reviewed the original so maybe you want to take a look?)
r? @camelid